Does anyone know anything about this one?? re Walmart

[CerridwenLorelei]

Friend called this morning and asked if I had heard the latest ( no haven't had the tv on in a bit and been busy(
Wallyworld wanted to build somewhere but the person owning the land refused to sell so the county confiscated it under some weird thing for Public use but he couldn't remember where it was.
What is this day and time when big brother can take your land just because you don't want to sell to corporations??
I have heard of this once before and the landowner is in a court battle over it -though I know he won't win...

[pie]

it's sad and all but the US government has a long history of facilitating the theft of land for the profit of a few.

[pumpkin]

Its called eminent domain. It is suppossed to be used when there is an extreme public need for your land.
A simple example would be a water pipe running through your property. If you refused to let the city run the water pipe through your property, then your neighbor might not be able to connect to the city water supply. A slighly more traumatic event would be the government seizing your land because they need it to build a highway, a school, etc. All of these are public goods and so you might be able to argue for the exercise of eminent domain, but you also might be able to argue against it.

Extending eminent domain to the benefit of corporations just seems downright corrupt to me.

[Chaja]

Are you sure your friend has her facts straight?!?!

There is a concept in U.S. law of eminent domain whereby a government can require a land owner to sell their land to the government - for the market price (as you know the bill of rights protects a person from the government taking their property without just compensation). However eminent domain only allows the government to buy the property for a public purpose - which would not include for the construction of a Wal Mart. It would include the construction of a hospital, school, water plant, highway, etc. However, even then the land owner has rights and it can object to whether it is really necessary for them to buy their land if other land is available and is just as good.

[mamalisa]

I watched a segment on 20/20 (I think) about this. Basically it was very similiar to what your friend was telling you. Someone wanted to build condos with small business located on the same piece of land. They needed to have a dozen or so houses cleared for it to work. They somehow got the homes declared(crap, I can't remember what they called it) basically, unliveable. The kicker in the whole thing was they were interviewing the mayor about the criteria they set for the homes: 2 car garages, central air, 2 baths, weren't met by most of the houses in the town, INCLUDING the mayors house!!! But she conviently didn't live in the area they were tryign to raze. They were saying that it was for the "good of the community" to do this. More revenue from taxes, better services from the businesses. I wish I could remeber more, but I don't really pay attention to the tv. Dh watches, I do other stuff

[mamaroni]

CerridwenLorelei, I really think the facts must be a little skewed or something.

Originally posted by Chaja
Are you sure your friend has her facts straight?!?!

There is a concept in U.S. law of eminent domain whereby a government can require a land owner to sell their land to the government - for the market price (as you know the bill of rights protects a person from the government taking their property without just compensation). However eminent domain only allows the government to buy the property for a public purpose - which would not include for the construction of a Wal Mart. It would include the construction of a hospital, school, water plant, highway, etc. However, even then the land owner has rights and it can object to whether it is really necessary for them to buy their land if other land is available and is just as good.

This is exactly what I would have said. There is not way the gov't can just simply take the property. There has to be more to it. The Constitution does not allow that to happen (as Chaja pointed out). That's why the pilgrims left England to begin with. I am very interested in the story, and would like to hear more.

[SummerLover]

I'm not sure if this is what your friend was talking about-

Alabaster is a community of about 24,000 people. Interstate 65 runs through Alabaster. A private developer named Colonial Properties Trust wants to build a shopping center anchored by a Wall-Mart on one of the corners of the I-65 intersection. The trouble is that Colonial doesn’t own all of the land they need. A few private land owners have refused to sell their property to Colonial. That, my friends, should be the end of the story. If one private individual wants to own a certain piece of property, but the legal owner of that piece of property doesn’t want to sell it, the private property rights of the owner of the real estate should be recognized, and the person trying to buy the property should back off.

Well, that’s not the way it’s working in Alabaster. Colonial, you see, has some friends in powerful places … politicians on the Alabaster city council. Colonial has decided to use that one unique government asset, the right to use force, to accomplish something that it cannot accomplish on its own. Colonial is asking the City of Alabaster to use force to seize the property under eminent domain and then sell that property to them, to Colonial, so that plans for the shopping center can proceed.

The politicians of Alabaster, Alabama are only too eager to cooperate.

Next week the City of Alabaster will file the condemnation proceedings in the Shelby County, Alabama courts. The City of Alabaster will try to seize the land under the principle of eminent domain. But wait! Aren’t governments supposed to use eminent domain to seize private property only when that property is needed for a public use? How can these politicians take that property away from its owners and then sell it to a private company to build a privately owned shopping center?

Here’s what the Alabaster politicians are saying. They claim that they simply cannot collect enough property taxes in their town of 24,000 to pay for all of the government they believe the citizens of Alabaster need. They need some sales taxes. Trouble is, there aren’t enough businesses around town to generate the amount of sales taxes these politicians want. The answer? Hey! Let’s get a shopping center in town. A shopping center will generate thousands of dollars in sales taxes, and we’ll have all that money to spend! What a concept!

So, Alabaster’s “public use” excuse is that the current owners of the land simply don’t pay enough taxes. The land needs to be seized and turned over to someone who will generate some more tax payments. Those additional taxes can then be spent on the public. There’s your “public use.”

http://www.freedomofthought.com/archives/000054.html

[mamaroni]

That argument (by the city council) is going to be quite a stretch in court.

[kama'aina mama]

Wake up and smell corporate Amerika ladies. This new, perverse version of eminient domain has been around for a bit. In fact it was used quite successfully by George W Bush when he and his business partners were having trouble obtaining the land the wanted to build the new Texas Rangers stadium on. They got land condemned so they could build on land that had been horse farm for the same family for over 100 years.

[mamaroni]

I'm not saying it can't/doesn't happen, but I'm trying to look at it objectively. I am a lawyer, and belive me, I'm not defending lawyers (I do not practice), but there is usually more to the story. When you're talking about taking away Constitutional rights, it's never cut and dry.

And just to play devil's advocate, the article posted above is obviously written from only one viewpoint!

[MelMel]

we have a problem with this in Lakewood (suburb right next to Cleveland)

http://www.cleveland.com/search/inde...8290.xml?oxlet

and

http://www.cleveland.com/search/inde...ounty_cuyahoga

[Delilah]

Quite believeable.

Discussions in corporate meetings go something like this:

"But that doesn't fit under the law of eminent domain."

"So what. We have friends in high places who want to make this happen. Let's do it. They'll have to be on the hook for an obscene amount of money to fight us off. I don't care if it is illegal; that is what courts are for. The risk is worth the return. "

Try reading Thom Hartmann's book, Unequal Protection The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights for a flavor of what is going on with many soulless US corporations.

[Nemmer]

We almost had this happen in our neighborhood a couple years ago. A developer had this grand idea to put in a shopping center, and the city was telling property owners that they would exercise "eminent domain" and force them out of their properties to develop this shopping center as part of the city's "beautification project." : Fortunately, the developer couldn't secure an anchor store for the shopping center, so they bagged the project. But, the houses were perfectly livable, and even quaint. The only thing in the neighborhood that was less than beautiful was the company with electrical pipes all over their yard. Oh, and the State Liquor Store...